Shalom and welcome to my Messianic Judaism discussion blog! I want this to be THE place where Messianics can come together and discuss what's on their heart. Spread the word about this blog and let's all work together to bring unity to the Body! Shalom!

Dan, if you want to know which commandments apply specifically to Israel, just look up any commandment (or a section of commandments) that starts with G-d saying "Say to the children of Israel" and you'll know who G-d meant them for.

And then Zion pointed out a flaw in Gene's test:

Gene, in 1 Peter 2:9-10 We have Peter calling gentiles a "chosen race", "priesthood", "holy nation"...etc etc.The point is, he is quoting Exodus 19:6 concerning gentiles, and the verse in Exodus 19:6 says:

These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.

Since Peter applies a verse that directly applies to the sons of Israel to gentiles who now trust in the Messiah, where does your understanding come into this?"

But Gene responded:

Zion, my friend, you've made a lot of assumptions about the First Epistle of Peter. Neither its authorship (most scholars today consider the work to be pseudographical) or its the target audience (which many scholars believe were assimilated Helenized Jews living in Diaspora that Peter as the Apostle to the Jews was trying to reach) is a settled thing. Far from it.

To break it down: Gene is advocating that 1 Peter is deceptive when it purports to be written by Peter (1:1). He's also advocating that the consensus of scholars are wrong to say that the addressees were predominantly non-Jewish. But let's pause to hear what the scholars are saying. First, was Peter the author or is 1 Peter pseudographical:

"If the evidence traditionally used to point to a late date and pseudonymous authorship is actually inconclusive because it could pertain to any period of the Christian church in the first century, then it becomes more difficult to avoid a more direct association of the letter with the apostle Peter himself. And there is substantial evidence that would point to a very close association of the apostle Peter with the letter.

First, the letter indisputably claims to be from the apostle Peter (1 Peter 1:1). In today's scholarly milieu, this may seem a naive point. But under the assumption that epistolary pseudonymity was frequently practiced and widely accepted in antiquity, the text's own claim is sometimes not given its due in favor of inferred evidence of questionable weight." [1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary) by Jobes]

Second, who were the addressees of 1 Peter:

"On the basis of 1:18, most modern commentators disagree that the audience was primarily Jewish Christian; that verse refers to the 'useless way of life you inherited from your ancestors'…" [ibid]

So I just think it's funny to watch how the Exclusionists attempt to get around Scripture. They have a big problem with Ephesians 2. But they have an even bigger problem with 1 Peter 2! With Ephesians 2, they desperately try to redefine "politeia" to mean something other than "citizenship" because if it means "citizenship" then non-Jews are FULL members of the New Covenant along with Messianic Jews. And they desperately try to argue that 1 Peter isn't written to non-Jews because if 1 Peter 2 is about non-Jews then we're forced to conclude that Apostle Peter believed that non-Jews had been incorporated into the People of Israel.

One last thing: what is the implication if non-Jews have been incorporated into Israel? I think McKee says it best:

"James affirmed Peter's testimony before the Council about God concerning Himself with the nations, and integrating these new Believers into the community. Interestingly enough, Peter himself would later write to a large group of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers, and would apply many Tanach concepts of Israel equally to them. Not only would these concepts serve to inform who they were to be as transformed Believers, but also how they would all be living out the Divine mandate as originally given to Israel together: '[Y]ou are CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY' (1 Peter 2:9-10; cf. Deuteronomy 7:6; 10:15; Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 61:6; 43:21; Deuteronomy 4:20; 14:2; and Hosea 2:23).We can safely assume that James, brother of Yeshua, would have agreed with this later assessment of Peter. It is not enough to just be a part of Israel or God's chosen, as one must live forth the special calling upon Israel," (pg. 57 "Acts 15 for the Practical Messianic" by J.K. McKee)

CONCLUSION

If you are a non-Jew then you need to realize that Yeshua has brought you into Israel, that this is a humbling responsibility given so that you will help Jews come to know the Messiah (because it's a gospel to the Jew first), and that you must "live forth the special calling upon Israel" which involves following Sinaitic Torah and showing respect for the Jewish traditions that conform to the spirit and letter of the Law.

[P.S. I've got to go to work now so I won't be able to check back until probably tomorrow. Shalom!]

75 comments:

""If the evidence traditionally used to point to a late date and pseudonymous authorship is actually inconclusive because it could pertain to any period of the Christian church in the first century, then it becomes more difficult to avoid a more direct association of the letter with the apostle Peter himself. "

What kind of explanation is that? Is this what passes for scholarship these days? Translation: "There some evidence that 1 Peter wasn't written by Peter and we don't know for sure either way, but this could only mean that there's indeed a direct association with Peter and in fact it's a sure thing as far as we are concerned!"

It's astounding to me that you'd have everyone believe that 1 Peter is a forgery.

Everyone,

Look up "pseudograph" in a dictionary. The definition is "forgery." Gene never ceases to amaze me. The lengths an Exclusionist will go to in order to dodge Scripture! And then he says that THEY are guilty of bad scholarship!

Oddly, the more you use the word, the more I am starting to warm up to the label "Exclusionist". Almost like a badge of honor, a scar from an unjust beating, like being cursed by being called "holy" (which interestingly enough means, "separated" or "set apart" from all).

"Oddly, the more you use the word, the more I am starting to warm up to the label "Exclusionist". Almost like a badge of honor, a scar from an unjust beating, like being cursed by being called "holy" (which interestingly enough means, "separated" or "set apart" from all)."

the Nazis started thinking like that and look what happened in the end...Do you think before you post?

"the Nazis started thinking like that and look what happened in the end."

Dan, throughout our history Jews have been reviled for being different, for being set apart from the nations, for being "exclusionists". Christianity wanted to do away with Jews through conversion and complete assimilation into the Gentile population. Nazis, feeding of these ideas, thought that even assimilation won't help, and that Jews should be slaughtered.

So, in your mind, Dan, the next natural progression is for Jews to raid churches and start carting off hundreds of millions of Gentiles into concentrations camps, force-work them to death and then burn them to ashes. I see...

Anonymous, what's your point - that our approach should be all or nothing? You do realize that the Christians in the first three or four centuries had hundreds of books and letters circulating, including many gospels, some of which were later canonized by the Church Fathers, right?

The point is not an all or nothing approach to the composition of Biblical books. The point is that you better be willing to question Mosaic authorship of the Torah, and the authorship of every book of the Old Testament as well...

"The point is that you better be willing to question Mosaic authorship of the Torah, and the authorship of every book of the Old Testament as well..."

Anonymous, I look at everything objectively, however, I do not put the Greek NT and associated writings which circulated in the first few centuries (or even Talmud and Mishnah) in the same category as the Torah and the prophets, which virtually alone - with a few exceptions - record G-d saying "Thus saith the L-rd".

Gene, one thing I have to give you, you are a master of diverting the issues....I am speaking about moral corruption and how it starts...just look at the Haredim in Israel, they more power they got the more they abused it and the public, until the public decided not to take it anymore...

Dan, exaggerate much? Messianic Jews have almost zero power, no influence and no money, and no growth, what are you talking about? Haredim will outnumber secular Jews in a couple of decades, while Messianic Jews leadership is a few dozen middle-age men from the 60's Jesus Movement (most from NYC) leading mostly Gentile congregations.

You are not going to take this anymore? Throw the remaining Jews out and call it a day.

It took you a few years, Gene, but finally, finally you get it...MJ UMJC style is not from God...Never was...And as one who knows this you still have the chutzpha to attack an even smaller group as OL...Why?

On second thought, do i smell an abandoning of Yeshua and return to mainstream Judaism? It happened before as you know....

"And as one who knows this you still have the chutzpha to attack an even smaller group as OL...Why?"

Dan, and if you are judging it by size, does it mean that OL is even less of G-d than MJ?

"On second thought, do i smell an abandoning of Yeshua and return to mainstream Judaism? It happened before as you know...."

I am already IN "mainstream" Judaism, Dan and have been for many years now. Is this news to you? If I wanted to "abandon Yeshua", that I would have done a long time ago. Thankfully, Yeshua didn't abandon Judaism.

Zion, I would encourage you to check out the resources I listed above to see for yourself. That being said, I don't see why it's not possible to read 1 Peter 2:9-10 as a literal exposition of passages such as Exodus 19:3-6. With all the focus on Israel's covenant with Hashem, it's easy to forget that it wasn't always this way. The rabbis certainly weren't shy of this fact: each year we recite from the haggadah: "Our fathers were worshipers of other gods."

Peter, I'm glad for the clarification about Gene. I do want to comment on one sentence you wrote: "I just think it's funny to watch how the Exclusionists attempt to get around Scripture...[they] desperately try to redefine 'politeia'...And they desperately try to argue that 1 Peter isn't written to non-Jews..." I find this section of your post objectionable on three counts:

(1) No offense to Gene, but I think taking one blogger's comments to represent an entire group is unjustified. Your post title references Gene, and if he's the only author you're referencing, I think you should be consistent with your referents.

(2) I find the term "Exclusionists" to be highly pejorative. In respectful discourse its highly preferable to employ terms that don't contain an inherent value judgment. When possible, I think it's best to employ the term by which a group designates itself.

(3) I find the phrase "desperately try[ing] to argue" to be an unfair characterization, subjective at best. I see no reason why the ethnicity of Peter's audience isn't a legitimate question. If anything, your characterization (overemphasizing the word desperate through repetition) leaves me wondering why it's so important that you impress to your readership how "desperate" the "Exclusionists" are.

The topics being debated certainly contain many challenging questions, and since they touch on issues of identity, the stakes are high. I hope my responses here will be received in the spirit in which they are offered. Shalom.

Zion, I would encourage you to check out the resources I listed above to see for yourself. That being said, I don't see why it's not possible to read 1 Peter 2:9-10 as a literal exposition of passages such as Exodus 19:3-6. With all the focus on Israel's covenant with Hashem, it's easy to forget that it wasn't always this way. The rabbis certainly weren't shy of this fact: each year we recite from the haggadah: "Our fathers were worshipers of other gods."

Yahnatan,

Thanks, but I did not read anything in the sources you posted dealing with 1 Peter 2:9-10, maybe I am blind, can you link directly to it.

You said "I don't see why it's not possible to read 1 Peter 2:9-10 as a literal exposition of passages such as Exodus 19:3-6". Agreed, however we have a problem with referring this to Jews, because Peter does not just quote Exodus 19:6, he also quotes Hosea 1:10, Paul happen to also quote Hosea 1:10 in Romans 9:24-26 and the audience to who he is referring to is Gentiles, unless Peter and Paul are in some sort of contradiction, this verse is speaking towards Gentiles.

So like I said, I don't see Jews in reference in that verse or we need to argue between Peter or Paul abusing the scriptures.

For those who try to maintain a view that Peter is speaking to Jews, they say this verse is referring to Jews who live outside of the land of Israel, as aliens and strangers in those lands. But there are too many inconsistencies to maintain this view.

Some people say, when Paul must mean in Romans 9:25-26 that Gentiles are Israel! Well, that would make Paul quite inconsistent in light of everything else he wrote.

A more likely use of Paul's Hosea in Romans is called "analogical", meaning that Paul uses the Hosea example of G-d being merciful to Israel (in restoring her), to show that G-d is doing the same to the Gentiles (who also were "not my people", but who became "my people" by G-d's grace).

It has nothing to do with Gentiles becoming "Israelites", but everything to do with Gentiles becoming the people of G-d.

A more likely use of Paul's Hosea in Romans is called "analogical", meaning that Paul uses the Hosea example of G-d being merciful to Israel (in restoring her), to show that G-d is doing the same to the Gentiles (who also were "not my people", but who became "my people" by G-d's grace).

However you want to look at this, Paul is using scripture that is spoken to Israel and applying it to gentiles... when trying to argue scripture that is spoken "only to Israel" should not be applied to gentiles, Paul did not follow that understanding.

If any of us today, randomly picked out scriptures applying to Israel and said this is the same for gentiles, we would immediately get a response of saying, sorry the audience is Israel, who is willing to correct Paul?

"If any of us today, randomly picked out scriptures applying to Israel and said this is the same for gentiles, we would immediately get a response of saying, sorry the audience is Israel, who is willing to correct Paul? "

Zion, the point is that Gentiles are benefiting through Israel's redemption and salvation - they are not on some separate track in that regard. The contention is that some people take this to mean that Gentiles were viewed by Paul as "Israelites" or that even Hosea must have been taking about Gentiles in the future. Not alt all.

With that in mind, for Paul then to use Hosea's "not my people" as an analogy (and do note that he actually reworded the prophecy to make use of it - which further confirms that it was only used as an analogy!) makes very good sense.

I didn't see any evidence in those links that would support a Jewish exclusive audience for 1 Peter (unless you count promises of evidence). I'm going to have to ask you to stop citing to dead-end links and start providing evidence for your views. What have you got? Archeology? Ancient writings? We've got the text of 1 Peter itself. If you, unlike Gene, believe in the authenticity of 1 Peter, then why not use the text of 1 Peter in your argument? In short, stop running from the text.

"If you, unlike Gene, believe in the authenticity of 1 Peter, then why not use the text of 1 Peter in your argument? In short, stop running from the text."

Peter, I think I have demonstrated myself as being quite capable of working with 1 Peter with a supposition that it is indeed a fully authentic, 100% unadulterated letter by Peter himself. I used the text and argued from it - now show me where I got it wrong.

I'd be happy to move forward from your statement that 1 Peter is a forgery and talk about the text itself. Here's two quick points:

(1) 1 Peter 4:3-4 "3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you."

Jews were not known at that time for being pagan; on the contrary, Paul says "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles" (Gal. 2). Also, Eph. 4:17 "Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds." In short, the Gentiles were known for their pagan walk and the Jews were known for their Torah-based walk.

Also, why would the pagans be "surprised"? One didn't expect Jews to attend the pagan revelries. However, one not only expected Gentiles to attend but there could be serious social and legal consequences if Gentiles failed to show loyalty to the local gods.

(2) 1 Peter 1:18 "18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect."

Here is the best evidence that 1 Peter is written to non-Jews. What way of life would Jews have inherited other than Judaism? All signs point to Judaism. Would Peter have said that Judaism was an "empty way of life"? No, because he practiced Judaism, visiting the Temple, praying at set times, etc. He did not reject his Judaic heritage as an "empty way of life." This statement only makes sense if he's talking about pagans. Because Peter knew the Prophets:

Jer. 16:19 "LORD, my strength and my stronghold, my refuge in a time of distress, the nations will come to You from the ends of the earth, and they will say, "Our fathers inherited only lies, worthless idols of no benefit at all."

Peter, your whole reply is based on the erroneous assumption that Helenized Jews did not live in Greek cities among the Greeks and in the manner of Greeks (with everything that entailed).

History, however, shows that they indeed do just that and that assimilation into the Helenic culture was rampant. Not only that, even Paul himself wrote the if one is a Jew, one is not to reverse his circumcision (as some Jews had indeed done, to participate in Greek sports, for example, events which involved sacrificing to idols!). He wouldn't write such a thing had it not been an actual concern at the time.

Also, I believe Ben Witherington argues for a Jewish Christian (again, hist term) audience for 1 Peter in his commentary Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians. If I recall correctly, Witherington thought this bolstered his case for authentic Petrine authorship.

Ah, I see. I'll elaborate for you: Hebrew Roots/One-Law/Two-House people who believe that Jesus made them Torah-observant Israelites are not happy with the Messianic Jews who disagree, and would leave that very same Jesus to convert to Judaism (which means a direct ticket to hell, with the rest of the Jews).

I'd be happy to move forward from your statement that 1 Peter is a forgery and talk about the text itself. Here's two quick points:

(1) 1 Peter 4:3-4 "3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you."

Jews were not known at that time for being pagan; on the contrary, Paul says "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles" (Gal. 2). Also, Eph. 4:17 "Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds." In short, the Gentiles were known for their pagan walk and the Jews were known for their Torah-based walk.

Also, why would the pagans be "surprised"? One didn't expect Jews to attend the pagan revelries. However, one not only expected Gentiles to attend but there could be serious social and legal consequences if Gentiles failed to show loyalty to the local gods.

(2) 1 Peter 1:18 "18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect."

Here is the best evidence that 1 Peter is written to non-Jews. What way of life would Jews have inherited other than Judaism? All signs point to Judaism. Would Peter have said that Judaism was an "empty way of life"? No, because he practiced Judaism, visiting the Temple, praying at set times, etc. He did not reject his Judaic heritage as an "empty way of life." This statement only makes sense if he's talking about pagans. Because Peter knew the Prophets:

Jer. 16:19 "LORD, my strength and my stronghold, my refuge in a time of distress, the nations will come to You from the ends of the earth, and they will say, "Our fathers inherited only lies, worthless idols of no benefit at all."

Peter, your whole reply is based on the erroneous assumption that Helenized Jews did not live in Greek cities among the Greeks and in the manner of Greeks (with everything that entailed).

History, however, shows that they indeed do just that and that assimilation into the Helenic culture was rampant. Not only that, even Paul himself wrote the if one is a Jew, one is not to reverse his circumcision (as some Jews had indeed done, to participate in Greek sports, for example, events which involved sacrificing to idols!). He wouldn't write such a thing had it not been an actual concern at the time.

"Empty of life" - well, Peter, if these Jews were so absorbed into the Helenic culture that they participated in its wickedness alongside the Gentiles (as Peter notes!), they indeed inherited an "empty way of life" from their parents and not the Jewish way of life that Peter inherited.

Tortured logic. If Peter thought the threat was the Hellenistic host cultures of his Jewish audience, why talk about ancestry? Hellenized Jews were tied to Hellenic gods largely through choice; but it was the Gentiles who were tied to their gods from their ancestors (as per Jer. 16:19).

That's illogical. If the reader of 1 Peter identified as a Jew then it would've been because his parents taught him Judaism. Thus, a Jewish audience means that the parents did SOMETHING right in promoting some semblance of Judaism. So Peter wouldn't have traced the problem to the parents but rather THE HELLENISTIC HOST CULTURE.

Scholars who confirm a Jewish audience in 1st Peter have noted that it would make little sense for Peter to be writing letters to Gentiles in churches that Paul himself set up and oversaw. As Paul wrote in Galatians 2 regarding his and Peter's missions:

"I had been entrusted with the Good News for the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the Good News for the circumcision"

"I'd like for you to answer my question: is keeping enough Judaism--enough Jewish lifestyle--so that subsequent generations consider themselves Jewish, is that what Peter meant by "empty way of life"?"

I know of plenty of secular Jews today who have inherited from their parents an "empty way of life", one that had little to do with whatever little Judaism they were exposed to and one that had little use for G-d. Yet, they are still Jews and for those of them who cared about being Jewish enough to in-marry, so are their children. It's not that hard to imagine the same being true in the first century.

You said the parents had an "empty way of life" and you said that the addressees of 1 Peter IDENTIFIED as Jews. Thus, you'd have us believe that an empty way of life causes someone to identify as Jewish. That's absurd! It's Judaism (and not an empty way of life) that causes Jewish identity!

Why is it that I should have to point out such an obvious causal connection??? Could it be that you are suffering from a profound bias?